fixpafandomcom-20200216-history
Public exposure Op-ed by David Schlosser
Op-ed column: Public exposure : by David Schlosser, candidate for U.S. Congress, Week of 19th July 2006 One of the hardest things about running for office - any office, from homeowner's association to Congress - is the quality and quantity of exposure the public reasonably expects. Conventional wisdom suggests that no one should discuss politics or religion at a party. Yet, when running for office, those are two topics the audience demands. Further complicating the situation, parents and peers teach us by word and deed that talking about yourself is impolite - which is, unfortunately, exactly what a candidate must do at every opportunity. In other words, successful candidates are egotistical and offensive to the significant plurality - if not outright majority - of the population that does not agree with them. It's a challenging paradox, and there are a variety of ways to deal with it. Most candidates confront it head-on. They write a brochure with some issue statements and a biography that highlights the relevant bits and omits the embarrassing bits. Clever candidates find a way to "spin" the stuff most people consider odd or bad - for example, a business failure may become a character-building experience. A troubled child may become a platform for speaking about law enforcement. A very few candidates confront it more obliquely, by making up a history they believe voters may find more attractive. This isn't as easy as it used to be, with Internet search engines allowing anyone to find tracks, or a lack of tracks. Besides making it harder for a candidate to manufacture a history, the Internet also encourages such candidates to exit with admirable haste. Fortunately, the Internet creates more opportunities for positive public exposure than negative. Before the Internet, sharing information with voters was expensive - printing and distributing issue statements by mail or in person, faxing or mailing news releases, establishing elaborate networks of offices and supporters. Today, a Web site has an infinite volume of space for sharing information and ideas. Even more important, the Internet exposes candidates to a reciprocal relationship - for every position a candidate takes on his or her Web site, citizens can respond by sending an email, posting a response on a Weblog, or sending a link to the information to other citizens. What used to be a single-lane, one-way street may become the intersection of multiple superhighways. That qualification, "may," is critically important. The Internet enables a significant two-way relationship between a candidate and his or her constituents. But not every candidate chooses to take advantage of that opportunity. Many candidates choose to simply reproduce the same static content of the old days, which leaves both citizens and their candidates relatively impoverished. The exchange of ideas and opinions that emerged from the earliest communities of small-D democrats, lost during most of the Twentieth Century, is as possible today as when America's early immigrants arrived here nearly 400 years ago. That exchange reflects both the rights and responsibilities of citizenship: citizens have a right to choose their representatives, and those leaders have a responsibility to both lead and reflect their constituents; citizens have a responsibility to participate in the civic life of our country, and their elected representatives reciprocate by guaranteeing their shared rights remain intact. Despite the extraordinary opportunities of the Internet to increase favorable public exposure, too few candidates use that tool - or any others - to present themselves and their ideas to citizens in a productive way. Even fewer use it to develop the kind of dialogue that enhances public policies and engagement in our civic responsibilities. These circumstances are particularly disappointing because candidates have a very special obligation to expose themselves to the citizens who will decide whether to reward them with the right to represent the public. Our nation's founders believed that this process of public exposure would equip citizens with the information necessary to make the best possible decision about their elected representatives. From stump speeches, to the Lincoln-Douglas debates, to whistle-stop tours, to the Presidential Debates Commission, America's leaders and citizens designed a broad array of opportunities for public exposure. One popular demonstration of these ideals is the special-interest survey. Most special interest groups, from Sierra Club to Gun Owners of America, ask candidates to respond to questionnaires that will allow the groups' members to decide how to cast their votes. Most of these surveys ask very pointed questions with very limited opportunities to answer. The essence of most questions approximates the leading questions that get lawyers in trouble in courtroom dramas: "Don't you agree that the most extreme interpretation of our opposition's position is absolutely wrong? Please answer 'yes' or 'no.'" The Internet allows candidates to share these questionnaires with all voters and, importantly, to offer more fulfilling answers than yes/no. I've challenged all the candidates in this Congressional race to post their responses to these special-interest surveys on their Web sites, as I've done, to increase our public exposure. As yet, none of the other candidates have done so. Even more disappointing, some candidates actively refuse to expose themselves to the public in ways that would inform voters and open the two-way dialogue between candidates and the electorate. Incumbent Congressman Rick Renzi refused to answer the few simple questions posed to all candidates by his home-town newspaper. Democrat Ellen Simon decided at the last moment to refuse to participate in this week's forum of the five candidates for the Democratic nomination. In both cases, what's apparent is that those candidates will use their campaign contributions to shield them from public exposure. Instead of engaging their constituency in a way that informs and rewards both citizens and candidates, they will buy television and radio advertising. It's a clever political strategy, but it rewards only the consultants who produce and buy the ads and the broadcasters and cable companies that carry the ads. It's a completely controlled, entirely risk-free form of public exposure. I believe that our constituents deserve more public exposure, not less, and encourage voters to demand it. Paid for by Schlosser for Congress. Scott Gude, Treasurer